There is no second point.
Those are both forms of property.
No, they are not.
That’s an assertion, Knight. [A]
If I made up my own definition of property I could equally assert anything is mine as well.
The parents have first claim to the child’s guardianship rights.
You mean a mother that is planning an eviction, no?
The mother has first claim to the child’s guardianship rights.
Yes. And where does the problem still exist?
Have you read the associated papers? Long list of objections addressed there if you have more. i.e stem cells and the fetus - which is what I think you are getting at?
No, it isn’t.
Maybe not so much a problem, conza, as a hiccup… how long do you give to the new homesteader to find a suitable replacement? If my car breaks down at someone else’s house, then presumably I shouldn’t be required to perform the impossible of carrying it home. There must be time to call a tow truck and get it hauled away. If the property owner demands I immediately move it, and I can’t because the tow truck can’t make it for hours, or perhaps even over a day, is he immediately allowed to demolish it? In the same way, if someone doesn’t immediately have the ability to move the fetus from the pregnant woman, when she is ready to “evict”, is she required to delay the procedure? For how long?
Aye, I also noticed a common theme in those two episode that actions have logical implications. Specifically speaking: rationalizing the sacrifice/violation of certain liberty permits the obviation of all liberty. To deny that would be inconsistent, and ignoring its role as pretext for the violation for rights. Like you said, it’s either liberty or slavery.
I couldn’t think of more exemplary catalyst, for the intellectual devastation of neocons than a Picard speech.
You may only homestead unowned property. If parents give up the stewardship of their child’s rights, then that stewardship is unowned and therefore homestead-able. I’m not sure how that leads to…
If I’m “planning” on abandoning my car, but have not yet done so, you can’t come claim it. It’s still mine. I have no obligation to keep it in prestine shape so that you approve once I abandon it. What if I change my mind and plan to keep it? The same goes for a woman’s fetus. You can’t claim it just because she’s thinking about having an abortion or even planning the abortion. You have to wait until after she actually gets an abortion. What comes out, you may or may not want.
How is this position?
A human child is born with property rights, specifically self-ownership. Parents act as his agents based on the fact that they have provided the genetic material. Parents are under no obligation to care for the child, but upon doing so relinquish their status as agents allowing others to step in. The prospective sponsors of the child must present evidence to an agreed upon arbitrator that the parents have relinquished their status as agents to the child unless the parents have voluntarily given up this status. In the event parents are not around - either they died or simply abandoned the child - then the arbitrator who the parents had association with would decide who would gain sponsorship of the child.
The relationship between the child and the child’s agents (parents or sponsors) must follow the NAP. This relationship continues until the child reaches an established age of majority or some other method - established by the free market. There may also be a point where a child has the option to choose his agent(s).
I tend to agree with Block’s position on the abortion issue.
When discussing sex/rape as we are, consent is more than a teleological category. It is an action - an “explicit materialised movement”. Without it, sex is rape.
Does their reasoning and will go unobserved, or does do they temporarily lose these abilities? Presently, it’s impossible to know for sure. We can presume, however, that regardless of their present abilities, in the future they will have these abilities, either still or again.
It tells us nothing. There is no evidence that their reason and will are or not intact. We can presume, however, that regardless of their present abilities, in the future they will have these abilities, either still or again.
That would depend on how the father feels.
Agreed. But we are discussing what exactly should be legal.
I would say most likely not. Is a child justified in killing her parents because she did not like her diapers being changed? Or because they let her watch “too much” television? Or locked her in her room at night?
You are playing a semantics game. Did you have a better definition?
How does someone derive the right to represent the child against her parents? Also, is sex inherently wrong? If not, then why is sex wrong with a child whereas changing the child’s diaper is not?
In that neither of them are moral agents, yes.
Legally speaking, yes. Of course, at some point in a child’s life, the answer becomes no.
I don’t understand what the two have in common.
Why? Social contracts have to do with all humans. Having sex with a child is just talking about children, not all humans.
What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different “things”. Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing.
No matter how many times I repeat myself you and spidey are going to keep parroting your ownership theory of wives, children and domestics straight out of the 18th century.
Can a fetus give consent in the future without the mother?
Changing a child’s diaper keeps it clean and safe from infection. If you left an infant to roll around in its own waste, you would be ceding any guardianship rights as well.
Sex serves no purpose with pre-rational children. Females can’t even reproduce. Remember your purpose, the reason why you have any sort of ownership rights to a child at all? You get these rights from aiding their advancement to a state of moral agency, not from creating them. Raping toddlers is not aiding them. How can you continue to argue against this?
So it is not a scientific fact that they are both organisms?